The absence of substantial reasons in a dismissal order for condoning delay in appeal warrants judicial review and remand for reconsideration.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to declare the order passed by the respondent No.1 in I.A.No.5 of 2010 dated 07.04.2011 filed to condone the delay of 866 days in filing the appeal under Sec.10 of A.P. (A.T) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 against the order of respondent No.2 dated 20.08.2007, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order.”

3. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that the respondent Nos.3 to 10 have filed petition against respondent Nos.11 to 13 for grant of Occupancy Rights certificate (ORC) in respect of total land admeasuring Ac.75.31 gts in Sy.No.55 of Dhamsalapuram Village, Khammam Urban (M) of Khammam District under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of A.P. (T.A) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued notices to all the occupants. Hence, the petitioner had filed application for grant of ORC to an extent of Ac.6-22 gts. However, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s claim and vide order dated 20.08.2007, issued ORC in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2007, petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 along with I.A.No.5 of 2010 i.e., application to condone the delay of 857 days (from 19.09.2007 to 22.01.2010) in filing the appeal and the respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.04.2011 dismissed the I.A.No.5 of 2010.

petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties were trying to settle the issue and when there was no response from the respondents and there was delay in compromise, petitioners filed an appeal along with I.A.No.5 of 2010. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 without stating any substantial reasons had passed impugned order dated 07.04.2011 and dismissed I.A.No.5 of 2010 and pray this Court to set aside the same and direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s case and pass orders in a time bound period.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent No.1 issued notice on 22.01.2011 and though reasonable time was granted, petitioner failed to explain reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Hence, respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.04.2011, dismissed the I.A.No.5 of 2010.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record. Upon perusal, it is notice that the petitioner at paragraph No.4 in writ affidavit stated that one Sri Sistala Surya Prakasha Rao, amicably was trying to settle the issue between the parties and in view of such ongoing settlement, the petitioner failed to file appeal within time and when there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed appeal along with I.A.No.5 of 2010.

7. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 without hearing to the petitioner has is liable to be set aside, hence, the order dated 07.04.2011 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner case and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, the respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it